In a Franks challenge, the affidavit is the key, not necessarily the investigation

Franks claim fails because the officer received information and sought to corroborate it before putting it in the affidavit. [That is what he is supposed to do.] United States v. Sherman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79073 (E.D. Mo. October 7, 2008):

Because suppression pursuant to Franks typically deals with reckless or intentional omissions from an affidavit, the Court is not convinced that Officer Buehrle’s underlying investigation can provide a legal basis for suppression of evidence under Franks. See United States v. Curtis, 965 F.2d 610, 613 (8th Cir. 1992) (“Where a criminal defendant seeks suppression of evidence by challenging the veracity of information contained in the warrant affidavit, the only relevant inquiry for the district court is whether the warrant affiant knowingly, deliberately or recklessly included false statements in the warrant affidavit.”) (emphasis added) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171). Nevertheless, even assuming that an officer’s underlying investigation can serve as a basis for a Franks violation, both before and after receiving information about Ms. Schellert, Officer Buehrle made considerable efforts to corroborate her allegations and, in fact, did corroborate much of it. The Court finds that Officer Buehrle was not reckless and did not act in bad faith during his investigation. (emphasis in original)

So, the end result is the focus; how it got there might have some relevance, but it is not determinative.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.